Attack outside UK Houses Of Parliament — No speculation — Read 1st post

Richard Hillman · 23-03-2017 05:39PM

Martyrdom absolves a person of their sins.

The 9-11 culprits were drinking in strip clubs in the nights proceeding the attack. The Paris Orly guy was also found with cocaine, booze and cannabis in his system. It's a blow out before the blow up.

Professor Moriarty · 23-03-2017 05:42PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

In what way is it not consistent? Plenty of people have committed murder, even serial killings and later been found to be perfectly sane. Being a murderer does not automatically make a person insane and it only seems to be for these kind of attacks that people suggest it does.

How the courts view his behaviour is a different matter. The fact remains that his behaviour was not that of a sane person. He was most obviously insane at the time of the attack. 'Insane' definition: exhibiting a severely disordered state of mind, unable to think in a clear or sensible way.

robinph · 23-03-2017 05:42PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You said he wanted the opportunity to kill and maim as many as possible. Why did he pick one of the most policed parts of London then?
If the Houses were his 'target' why draw attention to himself before even getting there.

It has all the hallmarks of a rather desperate, ill thought out rampage. Sad and tragic as it was.

Even if he didn't know London particularly well, there are plenty of easier to drive through areas with bigger crowds and less armed police and less traffic bollard obstructions but just as high profile within half a mile of parliament. The guy didn't even get more than a stones throw into the parliament complex before being taken down, and a rather half hearted stones throw at that. If getting in there was his aim then why would he crash a car into the fence around the corner first to alert them to his presence?

Widdershins · 23-03-2017 05:44PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You said he wanted the opportunity to kill and maim as many as possible. Why did he pick one of the most policed parts of London then?
If the Houses were his 'target' why draw attention to himself before even getting there.

It has all the hallmarks of a rather desperate, ill thought out rampage. Sad and tragic as it was.

Being scared and scaremongering are two different things.

Because he definitely wouldn't manage to carry out any killings AFTER the houses of Parliament, Francie. No guarantee he would have gotten far into them, unimpeded.

Of course you might do it differently, or think you would, from your armchair.

donkeykong5 · 23-03-2017 05:45PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Widdershins wrote: »

The Mad vs Bad debate.

Don't conflate mental illness with jihadism.

A p.s to Francie: How long do you think it takes for someone to work up the nerve to proceed with an attack, in the knowledge that they will die for it?

I didn't conflate anything. His actions were not consistent with those of a sane person. It's not an excuse, reason or justification. It's just a fact.

Maybe he was just pure EVIL.

Widdershins · 23-03-2017 05:50PM

robinph wrote: »

Even if he didn't know London particularly well, there are plenty of easier to drive through areas with bigger crowds and less armed police and less traffic bollard obstructions but just as high profile within half a mile of parliament. The guy didn't even get more than a stones throw into the parliament complex before being taken down, and a rather half hearted stones throw at that. If getting in there was his aim then why would he crash a car into the fence around the corner first to alert them to his presence?

I think you're holding the man to unreasonable standards. He's both ''insane'' and expected to be the perfect military strategist at the same time.

ceadaoin. · 23-03-2017 05:51PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How the courts view his behaviour is a different matter. The fact remains that his behaviour was not that of a sane person. He was most obviously insane at the time of the attack. 'Insane' definition: exhibiting a severely disordered state of mind, unable to think in a clear or sensible way.

How do you know what his thinking or state of mind was at the time? It's possible for someone to want to kill and injure people and still be thinking clearly. Has it been confirmed that he hired the car? If so he was sufficiently clear minded and capable of social interaction to do that without raising alarm. He was capable of making his way to central London without drawing attention to himself by driving erratically etc. Some people are just scumbags

FrancieBrady · 23-03-2017 05:54PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Because he definitely wouldn't manage to carry out any killings AFTER the houses of Parliament, Francie. No guarantee he would have gotten far into them, unimpeded.

Of course you might do it differently, or think you would, from your armchair.

Jesus H.

YOU SAID his target was the HOP. Why would he alert police that he was coming by causing mayhem in the next street?

It was a random, incompetent, rather desperate attack, no matter how you look at it.

And less of the invective please.

FrancieBrady · 23-03-2017 05:55PM

robinph wrote: »

Even if he didn't know London particularly well, there are plenty of easier to drive through areas with bigger crowds and less armed police and less traffic bollard obstructions but just as high profile within half a mile of parliament. The guy didn't even get more than a stones throw into the parliament complex before being taken down, and a rather half hearted stones throw at that. If getting in there was his aim then why would he crash a car into the fence around the corner first to alert them to his presence?

I am trying to get that point across to Widdershins.

Professor Moriarty · 23-03-2017 06:09PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

How do you know what his thinking or state of mind was at the time? It's possible for someone to want to kill and injure people and still be thinking clearly. Has it been confirmed that he hired the car? If so he was sufficiently clear minded and capable of social interaction to do that without raising alarm. He was capable of making his way to central London without drawing attention to himself by driving erratically etc. Some people are just scumbags

I have no idea what he was thinking but I do know that his thinking was not sane. Here's another definition: 'Sane' - Having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense.

Tell me, do you consider his actions to show reason, sound judgement or good sense?

tigger123 · 23-03-2017 06:15PM

Snake Plisken wrote: »

well this would be a Europe wide operation, how come nearly every attack that happens in Europe the scum that carry out the attack has been know to the authorities? Also European armies and police need to break up these so called ghettos and no go zones in France Belgium, Sweden etc.
It would be great if this happened and some of the countries had the balls to do it but as we know from experience they won't!

Few reasons.

Firstly, there just isn't enough capacity in Police forces in Europe to monitor all extremists at all times. The man hours simply aren't there.

Secondly, often these extremists haven't actually done anything wrong ... yet; all they've been doing up until the act is ranting and raving on social media.

The fact that they're known to the police is a good thing. It shows the police are actively engaged in trying to stop these people. I'd be more worried if the police knew nothing about them.

jackofalltrades · 23-03-2017 06:20PM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Attacker named as Khalid Masood, born in Kent, sounds like your average common or garden variety scumbag with a string of previous convictions, none of them terror related.
Reminds me of a neighbour of my own that went on a similar rampage on the Dutch/German border a couple of years ago, luckily the only person he managed to kill was himself.

He was investigated by MI5 over violent extremism, he's not just your average scumbag.

Widdershins · 23-03-2017 06:24PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jesus H.

YOU SAID his target was the HOP. Why would he alert police that he was coming by causing mayhem in the next street?

It was a random, incompetent, rather desperate attack, no matter how you look at it.

And less of the invective please.

Less of what invective? Please point it out? Apart from where you say ''Jesus H.''

The idea I imagine was either impromptu or to ensure he did kill people even if he failed with the main target. Now you've to decide how logical and intelligent and how good of a forward planner you expect him to have been while at the same time asserting that he was insane. Or just accept you're not a mindreader and we can only guess at his reasons for taking the route and action he took.

Call Me Jimmy · 23-03-2017 06:25PM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Attacker named as Khalid Masood, born in Kent, sounds like your average common or garden variety scumbag with a string of previous convictions, none of them terror related. Reminds me of a neighbour of my own that went on a similar rampage on the Dutch/German border a couple of years ago, luckily the only person he managed to kill was himself.

Garden variety MI5 investigated too. Don't bend over backwards man

ScumLord · 23-03-2017 06:28PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Now you've to decide how logical and intelligent and how good of a forward planner you expect him to have been while at the same time asserting that he was insane.

I think it's pretty clear that's not what's being said. It's one or the other, not both.

jackofalltrades · 23-03-2017 06:33PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I have no idea what he was thinking but I do know that his thinking was not sane. Here's another definition: 'Sane' - Having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense.

Tell me, do you consider his actions to show reason, sound judgement or good sense?

So you can't prove he was insane at the time, even though you say it was obvious.
And know your claiming that he wasn't sane, by using a definition that it is so wide it could describe a lot of people in their day to day lives.

ceadaoin. · 23-03-2017 06:39PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I have no idea what he was thinking but I do know that his thinking was not sane. Here's another definition: 'Sane' - Having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense.

Tell me, do you consider his actions to show reason, sound judgement or good sense?

Seeing as you are keen on definitions, here is another one

Insane - in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behaviour, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill.

Now, there are no indications that he met any of these criteria. He was able to behave and interact normally up until the time of the apparently pre planned attack. Society may not agree with his ideas, but it doesn't make him literally "insane". Sure by your definition, all followers of any religion are insane because those beliefs definitely have no reason behind them

CoolHandBandit · 23-03-2017 06:41PM

Ah I see the "mentally I'll" angle is being trotted out yet again.

Widdershins · 23-03-2017 06:42PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I think it's pretty clear that's not what's being said. It's one or the other, not both.

Either mad or incompetent (either way, insignificant)? Well the first is for deflection and the second is debatable. I think it's clear people are making a variety of speculations to support what they want to believe and undermine what they don't want to accept, or believe. I don't really blame them, if I am guessing their reasons correctly. It's just misguided. I don't think anyone's particularly scared by the discussion. People wishing to discuss this are not responsible for others reactions, if they are scared or otherwise. Accusing everyone who doesn't accept those lines of scaremongering is quite counterproductive.

donkeykong5 · 23-03-2017 06:43PM

CoolHandBandit wrote: »

Ah I see the "mentally I'll" angle is being trotted out yet again.

Don't forget. Deprived childhood. .....bullied at school etc etc etc

Widdershins · 23-03-2017 06:54PM

As for Isil's intent or ability to carry out attacks, I was reading this article earlier. There is a quote from MI6 from December suggesting they will focus on the West, and I have heard more recently that their losses in the Middle East could result in further attacks in the West. :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/22/net-tightens-around-syria-iraq-isil-will-continue-lash-abroad/

ScumLord · 23-03-2017 06:55PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Either mad or incompetent (either way, insignificant)? Well the first is for deflection and the second is debatable.

I made the point that this attack was uncoordinated and ineffective, that I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out he had mental issues. I didn't say he had mental issues. I don't know much about the man, I'll have to wait and see what they dig up on him.

Hank Scorpio · 23-03-2017 07:07PM

I'd say the only people with mental issues are the ones calling attacks like this ineffective and trying to brush it off. Incredibly insulting to the victims. Hundreds dead in Europe since Dec 2015 from radical Islamic terrorism, fact.

robinph · 23-03-2017 07:22PM

Widdershins wrote: »

I think you're holding the man to unreasonable standards. He's both ''insane'' and expected to be the perfect military strategist at the same time.

Don't know about the insane part, but it really doesn't take much thought to come up with a better plan for an attack than driving across a bridge footpath, crashing into a concrete wall, running round a corner and then only making it 5 meters past the car park gate police. A quick look at Google Street view would tell you that you are approaching from the wrong direction.

FrancieBrady · 23-03-2017 07:25PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Less of what invective? Please point it out? Apart from where you say ''Jesus H.''

The idea I imagine was either impromptu or to ensure he did kill people even if he failed with the main target. Now you've to decide how logical and intelligent and how good of a forward planner you expect him to have been while at the same time asserting that he was insane. Or just accept you're not a mindreader and we can only guess at his reasons for taking the route and action he took.

I didn't assert he was 'insane'.
I asserted his attack was rather desperate and you have confirmed it.

Insinuating I was sitting in an armchair in an an attempt to demean my argument I consider 'invective'

Jesus H was merely an attempt to show exasperation that you couldn't grasp the point.

Widdershins · 23-03-2017 07:27PM

robinph wrote: »

Don't know about the insane part, but it really doesn't take much thought to come up with a better plan for an attack than driving across a bridge footpath, crashing into a concrete wall, running round a corner and then only making it 5 meters past the car park gate police. A quick look at Google Street view would tell you that you are approaching from the wrong direction.

Crashing into human beings (an achievement to his mind) and stabbing a policeman who was an obstacle on his path to his target, or his next target, all of that does not really seem like he would have considered it a failure, or that he wasn't that intent or committed or murderous or dangerous,whether or not you can see a more..efficient way he could have done it, doesn't really make a difference.

FrancieBrady · 23-03-2017 07:31PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Crashing into human beings (an achievement to his mind)

Are you not reading his mind now?
Maybe he inadvertently crashed the car and was trying to escape?

Widdershins · 23-03-2017 07:31PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't assert he was 'insane'.
I asserted his attack was rather desperate and you have confirmed it.

Insinuating I was sitting in an armchair in an an attempt to demean my argument I consider 'invective'

Jesus H was merely an attempt to show exasperation that you couldn't grasp the point.

I presume you are sitting down to type, if not in an armchair. Can I change it to ''from your vantage point'', then. I wasn't intentionally being insulting. Maybe in hindsight if he lived he'd have, er, done it differently, who knows. I don't know what is desperate about taking a vehicle and knives and setting out to kill as many as possible with them. As has been said, it's what was available to him.

I do grasp the point you were making but I don't think you're right about it.

Widdershins · 23-03-2017 07:33PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you not reading his mind now?
Maybe he inadvertently crashed the car and was trying to escape?

Look at the image with the sequence of eventshttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/22/attack-houses-parliament-london-what-we-know-so-far
. I am not aware of any doubt about his intent to hit those people, so why you are now implying it was accidental is a mystery.

I'll leave it at that.

Grayson · 23-03-2017 07:34PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I'd say the only people with mental issues are the ones calling attacks like this ineffective and trying to brush it off. Incredibly insulting to the victims. Hundreds dead in Europe since Dec 2015 from radical Islamic terrorism, fact.

At this point we don't know. He may have had issues, he may not have. Some person mentioned a bad childhood, that may be possible too.
It's easy to imagine someone as a two dimensional figure motivated by a single thing but it's never true. There's always a mixture of political, religious and personal motivations for an attack. There's always a reason they were susceptible to being radicalised.

Attack outside UK Houses Of Parliament — No speculation — Read 1st post

Comments